Chucking in the old lens

B

Bmwjc

Messages
179
Name
I
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got to the stage where I think (I'm not over educated in photograph yet) that what I'm trying to get from my camera isn't over possible from the lens I have. I have the kit lens 18-55 cheap job that came with my canon 400d.

I'm assuming that this is quite a poor quality lens and it is quite limited to what you can get from it.

Can anyone recommend a lens that would be significantly better than that one. I'm very open to anything at the moment. I've look at the 24-100 (I think it was) L series lens which is obviously the don in quality. Price isn't really the issue but if anyone can through something else into equation I would be grateful.

Use will be all round really. I do lots of sports but I have a different lens (also basic canon to be replaced at a late date) for those. Priority at the moment is a better general lens.

Thanks
 
The 24-105L is significantly better than the kit lens, but obviously it's a lot of outlay. Even a used one is going to cost you circa £600. I had the 17-85 IS for a while and found it a nice lens with a very usable range, useful as a walkabout lens and not too expensive.
 
Would you say I would notice the difference between the L lens and the one you had? £700 is the cheapest new I have found so its a heavy investment. Would it be something I noticed by not going the whole hog?
 
The Canon 15-85 is excellent and better for a crop like the 400d. Also look at the Sigma 17-70, Tamron 17-50.
 
twist said:
The Canon 15-85 is excellent and better for a crop like the 400d. Also look at the Sigma 17-70, Tamron 17-50.
Click to expand...

Sorry should have said the 400d is being sold and I've now got a 60d. Not sure if this makes a difference but I'm slowly upgrading my stuff that I had when I first got interested!
 
60D is also crop, same sensor size so I still think the 15-85 is a better walk about.
 
Tamron 17-50 if you are going on the cheap. You will certainly appreciate constant f/2.8
24-105 is a very nice lens but it is a bit overrated for the price, or just a bit outdated (and now replaced by more expensive but sharper 24-70mm f/4L IS)
15-85 is a bit slow so that could be part of consideration if you are going to shoot people, indoors, in low light.
 
Having used both the 15-85 and the 24-105 on a cropped sensor (7D) I can speak from experience.

The 24-105 is without question the sharper of the two lenses and can be had for about £500 second hand.

The 15-85 gives you that much extra width (and it is quite a bit wider) and can be found for about £350.

Both are good lenses but I decided to keep the 24-105.
 
so for the large hike in money there isnt in you opinion much worth while difference in quality between the IS lens and the L lens?
 
having spoken to people on here and friends it seems the L series lens should be about £700 - £800 new and about £500 new.
I use ebay a lot but not for photography. I have seen lost of listing like this one, but can any see any faults or problems considering its under £600 new!
 
Bmwjc said:
I've got to the stage where I think (I'm not over educated in photograph yet) that what I'm trying to get from my camera isn't over possible from the lens I have.
Click to expand...
The 18-55 lens you have is not crap. It's probably not particularly sharp wide open, but it's probably plenty sharp stopped down. The reality is no lens is at it's maximum sharpness wide open. What won't it do that you want?

None of the lenses mentioned are particularly faster for low light; although the 24-105 is a constant f/4 which is a stop better than the kit lens (and longer).

You're assuming the lens is quite poor and quite limiting... If you don't know what the limit is, then you haven't hit it. The lens definitely has limits, but every other option also has it's limits/compromises. Again, the kit lens is not "crap."

I own a lot of VERY expensive fast lenses, but I don't use them wide open unless I have to. And my favorite general purpose lens is a 28-300 variable aperture zoom... I just consider it a f/8 lens. It's great when there's enough light, but certainly not a perfect lens.... There is no such thing.
 
Last edited:
I would have a very good look at the 17-55 f2.8 IS. :love:
I have both the 17-55 and the 24-105 f4 L IS (also a 10-22, 50 1.8 & 18-200 from a previous 450D). You could probably get one at the same sort of price as the 24-105.
The reason I say the 17-55 is that it is by far my favourite lens, it is faster, sharper & far more consistent than any other lens in my bag & it spends 80% of the time on my 7D. ( all lenses are calibrated with Focal Pro so its an objective as well as subjective opinion!) It is brilliant for indoors, low light & action shots.
I actually had the 24-105 first with my 7D but found that it was not wide or fast enough (shooting the kids indoors especially) hence the 17-55.
I understand that people may well say that it's not "L" glass, its EF-S & you may miss the reach that the 105 will give, but if I only had one lens, the 17-55 2.8 IS would be it!
 
If you're going to stick with crop for a while then the 17-55IS is amazing. It's not built like an L lens but the image quality is superb. Though obviously if you intend going full frame later it won't fit.

I've never used the 15-85 but have heard great things. Personally though if I was buying one lens I'd want it to cover as much range as possible and the option of a wide aperture. That's why the 15-85 won't grace my bag. For me it'd be between the 17-55 and 24-105 depending on which focal length was more important. Or try a tamron or sigma variant of the 24-70 2.8. Much cheaper an excellent quality if you get a good copy. I'd recommend looking into them as an option.
 
Bmwjc said:
I've got to the stage where I think (I'm not over educated in photograph yet) that what I'm trying to get from my camera isn't over possible from the lens I have. I have the kit lens 18-55 cheap job that came with my canon 400d.

I'm assuming that this is quite a poor quality lens and it is quite limited to what you can get from it.

Can anyone recommend a lens that would be significantly better than that one. I'm very open to anything at the moment. I've look at the 24-100 (I think it was) L series lens which is obviously the don in quality. Price isn't really the issue but if anyone can through something else into equation I would be grateful.

Use will be all round really. I do lots of sports but I have a different lens (also basic canon to be replaced at a late date) for those. Priority at the moment is a better general lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of your pictures for us to see? It is just so easy nowadays for people to blame the kit for poor quality, do not assume that a better lens will improve your pictures dramatically ;)
 
I appreciate that the kit isn't the only factor in the picture, I'm a skilled worker by trade so I understand the quality of tools should be equaled if not bettered by the skill of the person however the tools do not always keep up with the person. I've been playing around with a mates lenses who has some of the "better quality" versions so I'm sure it's what I need to do next.

I think taking into account people's advice I will look to by the 17-85mm lens.

My main category for photography is sports so I think my money should be spent on that lens which I've already decided on!
 
i have the 18-55 kit lens and think its a very good lens ok its not L class granted but still a very good lens with good clarity here is a photo with mine


this was taken at summerlee by hoochy1, on Flickr
 
I've probably been a bit harsh to it. I've had some great photos from it but naturally like anyone you want the best you can get.

Does anyone know of a good camera shop bedfordshire area where I could take a closer look at different alternatives?
 
Bmwjc said:
I think taking into account people's advice I will look to by the 17-85mm lens.

My main category for photography is sports so I think my money should be spent on that lens which I've already decided on!
Click to expand...

For sports?!
I don't think so... not even for close quarters indoor sports.

For sports, your kit lens has two major short comings. It's slow (aperture) and it's short (focal length). The 17-85 is not significantly better in either category...

Which issue is more problematic for you? Aperture (indoor/night) or focal length (outdoor daytime)?

Actually, never mind....
 
^
Right... Let me clarify my thoughts. I was after a replacement for the kit lens. I mentioned I was seriously considering the 24-105 L lens.

I kind poster in here has pointed out another good all round lens that I should consider others have backed it up an reading reviews I made my mind up to go for it. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than the one I was originally in for therefore altering my thought process for the telephoto lens I have also gone for. I.e going the extra mile on the one that I will use the most.

Don't get involved if its not a topic you like or are interested in. Bloody god damns!
 
Bmwjc said:
Don't get involved if its not a topic you like or are interested in. Bloody god damns!
Click to expand...

Well, I apologize.
Somehow in this long thread I lost track of you wanting a lens for "general purpose" and read your last post as having decided on the 17-85 for sports.

Still, you have never addressed what you find lacking in the kit lens...it's actually supposed to be a very good lens, especially for the money (I shoot Nikon). In Nikon I can get just as good of pictures out of a 18-200 or 28-300 as I can get from any of my f/2.8 lenses, it's just more situationally dependent.

I think replacing the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 variable aperture with the 17-85 f/4-5.6 variable aperture doesn't really address much as far as possible shortcomings... perhaps a little more versatile due to longer focal length (better for portraits), but also perhaps less versatile due to being slightly slower at the wide end and having older generation IS. It probably is a little sharper looking at your images at 100% magnification on the computer, but that's pretty irrelevant. To me it sounds like it's probably a waste of money and pretty much a wash.
 
Last edited:
What I've found and I admit my knowledge is limited. When I put a friends lens 24-105 L lens not my 60d it produces better results of the same subject. Pictures seem a bit more crisp, it's also feels like it works smoother, feels better made. I have no experience of the 17-85 lens so cannot comment on that one but I am very interested I have a try with it. I will admit like I said before I've been harsh on the kit lens.
 
The L lens probably has better contrast, but that is a very minor issue easily corrected. It is almost certainly better made, but it's also 4x the money and 50% more in weight....

Everything is a tradeoff... I suggest you don't start spending money chasing "better" now, that gets very expensive very quickly. Spend money when you have a specific problem to solve and the expenditure will solve it.
 
Oh that's thrown the cat among the pigeons! Much thinking required now.
 
I own both the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, as well as the 18-55 (non IS) kit lens.
The 24-105 mechanically runs rings aound the other two lenses.
I found it to be sharper, especially at the wider apertures.
However it does distort at the wider end and for me is not wide enough on a crop body for my needs as a general purpose lens.

The Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, because of its focal length range is a very versatile walk around or travel lens.
It is ok for shoooting hand held in low light , but not great. It's IQ is ok and more than meets my needs for prints up to A4 and web publishing.

If I were looking at buying a replacement for the 18-55 (for a crop camera) nowdays I would be looking at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
 
Last edited:
Almost all of my lenses are "the best." The cheapest lens I own is a prime macro (~$800) and the most expensive is the 400 f/2.8 VRII (~$8k). Almost all of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster. The reason for this is I do a lot of action/low light work.

The only exception is my 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6. And for 95% of general shooting with descent light it's a great lens. It is my "go to" lens for general "whatever" shooting even though it is the least "perfect" lens I own. I could honestly do more than 50% of what I do with just this lens. And it's one of the cheapest I own.

Here are 3 100% crops side by side of three different options I had for 300mm. You tell me which was which...the two other options cost more than 2x more ($2.5-3k) and are much bigger/heavier.
My only point of this is....everything is a compromise. And just because a lens may not be "the best lens," it might be "the best compromise" for you.


Lens test w/ D800 by skersting66, on Flickr
 
RichardTaylor said:
If I were looking at buying a replacement for the 18-55 (for a crop camera) nowdays I would be looking at the 15-85
Click to expand...

The only reason I'd replace the 18-55 would be low light and overall performance...then I'd choose the 17-55 f/2.8. If i wanted longer/sharper/faster for portraits I'd ADD something like the 85 f/1.8. If I wanted more versatile I'd probably choose something like the 18-200. But I also really like wide angle for some things, so maybe a 11-16 or 10-20...

Without a problem, there is no correct answer... one size never fits all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top